8 June 1902

I have delayed in my reply to your letter, Vl[adimir] Il[yich], and I must apologize for it: I have been going through such a period that I could not properly compose a letter—my thoughts were all over the place.

The plan of campaign against Plekhanov appears to me in the following way: above all, we must obtain from the Zurich comrades acceptance of the resolution proposed by Berg [Martov].1) To this end, we must exert pressure on them by presenting the resolution with a declaration on behalf of us three; a declaration that would clearly state that on this question we will not yield, even if we should have to proceed to a rupture with Plekhanov—what happened today with one may happen tomorrow with another, and we wish to secure ourselves once and for all from Plekhanov's excesses. It would be well to bring this declaration to Plekhanov's attention as well.*) I do not think matters will come to a rupture, but in any case we must be prepared for the worst: it is impossible to work all the same amid internal cataclysms, consequently as a last resort it is better to separate, or to demarcate ourselves, than to endure.

To send the article on the cut-off lands for publication without having secured the approval of an absolute majority seems to me inconvenient—this will set against us not only P. B. [Axelrod], but also V[era] I[vanovna] [Zasulich], and the poor woman must be suffering enough as it is. It is better to endeavor to exert pressure than to appear formally in the wrong (our more advantageous interpretation of the agreement of 6 Oct[ober] 1900 is inconvenient at this moment).2)

*) Just as with our previous declarations. It is important that Plekh[anov] know for certain of our (all three) complete solidarity.

Furthermore: it seems to me that the draft revision of the constitution proposed by Berg [Martov] is more suitable than yours3) in the sense that it will preserve for us a certain control over Plekhanov for the future—up to now we have not exercised it, but who will vouch that we shall not be forced to exercise it with regard to him at some point?

I am very conscience-stricken that I have delayed my reply to you, and events may perhaps have already outpaced this letter of mine. Please write and let me know what happens next.

The letters from Axs[elrod] and Lev Grigoryevich Deich4) have displeased me greatly: Axs[elrod] clearly has quite forgotten to apply the usual measure to Plekhanov's actions and does not understand what all the fuss is about. He is also very displeased with my note! One cannot pound it into his head!

What is this, my dear fellow, with your health? Instead of the Paris ref[erate]5) you should go somewhere for a rest, and in London you should seriously attend to your health. If your nerves are worn, you must repair them by all means, without delay—even with hydrotherapy.

Soon I shall know where I shall spend the rest of the summer, and then I shall write to you.

The Calf [Struve] has issued a declaration "from the editor" about the publication of "Osvobozhdenie"—the motives are the same as in "R. N. S.".6) It is unlikely to tempt the Radicals.

I shake your hand firmly.

[Inscription by Vladimir Ilyich at the top of the letter:]
To Berg [Martov]. Return this letter as soon as possible without fail.

1) The text of Martov's resolution is unknown to us. It presumably coincided with Martov's proposal, which he set forth in his letter to Axelrod of 8 June 1902: "Now the main question remains: how to avoid in the future the possibility of such an aggravation of relations on the basis of the differences in shadings of our views, which undoubtedly exist among us? I think that in the interests of 'internal order' it would be best to establish that henceforth an author of an article (if he is a member of the collegium), who has not heeded the indications of the majority, should have the right to publish the article in whatever form he wishes with a caveat about the majority's disagreement with him and, consequently, with the granting to this majority of the right to come forward with counter-articles in Zarya itself. It seems to me that it will be better for the cause if the polemical heat evoked by such (far from dangerous) disagreements manifests itself immediately in print (naturally, the polemics must be kept within bounds), than on the margins of the manuscript, evoking only c o n f l i c t s." What is your opinion on this? V. Iv. [Zasulich] agrees with me on this point. I do not think it dangerous for us to show the public that on some agrarian question or the question of markets we have disagreements." ("Letters of P. B. Axelrod and Yu. O. Martov," vol. I, p. 67.)

2) The agreement of 6 October 1900—this is the agreement on the publication of Zarya and Iskra, concluded between the Group "Emancipation of Labor" and the editorial board of Iskra in the persons of Lenin and Potresov in Zurich (See "Lenin Collection" I, pp. 70—71). According to section 4 of this agreement, in case of disagreement between the editorial board and the Group "Emancipation of Labor," the editorial board is obliged to publish in full a separate opinion of the Group or of each of its members individually.

3) Apparently, V. I. Lenin proposed a more decisive draft of the constitution than the one proposed by Martov, but what it consisted of could not be established, as we do not have either the draft itself or letters from V. I. Lenin to A. N. Potresov setting forth his views.

4) Which specific letters of P. B. Axelrod and L. G. Deich A. N. Potresov is referring to—could not be established. One of Axelrod's letters to Lenin, concerning the question raised by Potresov, is printed as No. 103 in the third "Lenin Collection" (p. 419).

5) The projected r e f e r a t e of Lenin in Paris. See note 1 to letter 10.

6) At the beginning of June 1902 P. B. Struve issued a declaration about the publication under his editorship of the journal of liberal opposition "Osvobozhdenie," the first issue of which came out on 1 July (18 June) 1902. In his preface, signed with the letters R. N. S., to S. Yu. Witte's memorandum "Autocracy and Zemstvo," Struve expresses the demands of the democratic opposition in the words: "rights and an authoritative all-Russian zemstvo." The same demands were set forth in the "declaration from the editor" and in No. 1 of "Osvobozhdenie," where it was said: "we propose to unite those groups of society which have no opportunity to find an outlet for their indignant feelings either in class or in revolutionary struggle."